The Michigan Court of Appeals has ordered the Michigan Parole Board to consider a habitual offender for parole.

LANSING - In an unusual move that attorneys say has implications for a limited number of other Michigan prisoners, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ordered the Michigan Parole Board to give parole consideration to an inmate whose case the board has refused to hear.

In light of the decision released Wednesday, “a significant number of prisoners are now going to be able to come before the parole board for parole consideration,” said attorney Sarissa Montague, who argued the case for inmate Nathan Hayes of Kalamazoo.

“This has broader implications,” Montague told the Free Press.

But how many prisoners could be affected by the ruling was not immediately clear. The case applies to inmates who were sentenced as habitual offenders before Michigan’s “truth in sentencing” law was implemented between 1998 and 2000, and who have earned “disciplinary credits” that would entitle them to be considered for parole prior to their minimum release date, if the parole board counted the disciplinary credits.

Richard Stapleton, who in 2011 retired as director of legal affairs for the Michigan Department of Corrections, said there might be 100 to 200 habitual offenders who would be covered by the ruling. The way it’s worked until now, the parole board only considers the disciplinary credits in determining parole eligibility if the sentencing judge first signs off on them, and inmates are instructed by MDOC not to contact their sentencing judge about parole prior to their regular release date.

The opinion by Appeals Court Judges Michael Kelly, Christopher Murray and Douglas Shapiro only relates to the right of certain inmates to be considered for parole, not to actually be granted parole.

Barbara Levine, an attorney and executive director of the Citizens Alliance on Prisons and Public Sp[ending, said the ruling has no connection to the current debate over “presumptive parole” legislation now before the Legislature, which would require the Parole Board to release well-behaving and nonviolent criminals after serving their minimum sentence, unless the board came up with verifiable evidence that the prisoner shouldn’t be released.

Hayes, 39, a habitual offender, is serving a 20- to 30-year sentence at Gus Harrison Correctional Facility in Adrian, on armed robbery and conspiracy charges.

The minimum release date for Hayes is July 5, 2017, but when disciplinary credits are included, the “net minimum date” for his release is Oct. 2, 2013, the appeals court said in a summary of the case.

Disciplinary credits and what was formerly known as “good time” for good behavior are not available to inmates sentenced under Michigan’s “truth in sentencing” law.

As early as 2008, Hayes began asking the Michigan Parole Board to consider him for release, but the parole board refused. Hayes then petitioned Kalamazoo County Circuit Judge Gary Giguere, Jr. -- the successor to the judge who sentenced Hayes -- asking Giguere to grant the parole board jurisdiction to hear his parole. The judge denied the request, saying he did not have jurisdiction to do so.

Hayes then asked the judge to order the parole board to consider him for parole. The judge refused.

Under state law, a habitual offender generally is not eligible for parole until the minimum term fixed by the sentencing judge unless that judge or a successor judge gives written approval. But state law also says the parole board gets jurisdiction over a prisoner once the prisoner serves their minimum sentence, less any good time or disciplinary credits earned.

The parole board argued it had no obligation to consider Hayes for parole until the sentencing judge or a successor judge gave written approval.

But the appeals court said that’s incorrect. The sentencing judge must sign off before the inmate is released on parole, but not before the inmate is considered for parole, the court said.

When Hayes completed his “net minimum sentence,” which includes disciplinary credits, “the board had a duty to consider whether he was a proper candidate for parole,” the panel said.

The panel ordered what it said is the “extraordinary remedy” of instructing the circuit judge to issue a writ of mandamus, ordering the parole board to consider Hayes for parole.